State v. Coats
Decision Date | 11 January 1938 |
Citation | 74 P.2d 1102,158 Or. 122 |
Parties | STATE v. COATS. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
In banc.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk County; Arlie G. Walker, Judge.
C. C Coats was charged by information with promoting and setting up a lottery by means of a device commonly known as a pin ball game. From a decree sustaining a general demurrer to the information, the State appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Bruce Spaulding, Dist. Atty., of Dallas, and Ralph E. Moody, Asst. Atty. Gen. (I. H. Van Winkle, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for the State.
Walter L. Tooze, of Portland, and George R. Bagley, of Hillsboro (John Steelhammer, of Salem, on the brief), for respondent.
The defendant, Coats, is charged with the crime of promoting and setting up a lottery in Polk county by means of a certain device commonly known as a pin ball game.
In the information filed by the district attorney it is alleged as follows:
From an order sustaining a general demurrer to the information, the State appeals.
The vital question is whether the setting up and operation of the pin ball machine particularly described in the information constitutes conducting a lottery within the meaning of the term as defined by this court.
Section 4 of article 15 of the Constitution of Oregon provides as follows: "Lotteries, and the sale of lottery tickets, for any purpose whatever, are prohibited, and the legislative assembly shall prevent the same by penal laws."
Section 14-801, Oregon Code 1930, in reference to setting up or promoting lotteries, provides: "If any person shall promote or set up any lottery for money or other valuable thing, or shall dispose of any property of value, real or personal, by way or means of lottery, or shall aid or be in any way concerned in setting up, managing, or drawing such lottery, or shall, in any house, shop, boat, shed, or building owned or occupied by him or under his control, knowingly permit, or suffer the setting up, management, or drawing of any such lottery, or the sale of any lottery tickets, share of a ticket, or any writing, token, or other device purporting or intended to entitle the holder or bearer thereof, or any other person, to any prize or interest or share thereof, to be drawn in any lottery, such person, upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than six months nor more than one year, or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than three months nor more than one year, or by fine not less than $100 nor more than $1,000."
The State contends that the operation of this mechanical device involves all the elements of a lottery, and that any statute or ordinance purporting to authorize the licensing of the same is in violation of the Constitution, and hence of no force or effect.
The defendant contends that, since the pin ball game, under the allegations of the information, involves an element of skill it cannot, under the law, be deemed a lottery. The defendant further asserts that, before any game can...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hudson, 9763.
...R.C.L. 1225; State, ex inf. McKittrick v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Company, 341 Mo. 862, 110 S.W.2d 705, 113 A.L.R. 1104; State v. Coats, 158 Or. 122, 74 P.2d 1102; United-Detroit Theatres v. Colonial Theatrical Enterprises, 280 Mich. 425, 273 N.W. 756; Commonwealth v. Plissner, 295 Mass. ......
-
Poppen v. Walker, 18374
...courts adopt the generally accepted definition in popular use. Quatsoe v. Eggleston, 42 Or. 315, 71 P. 66 (1903); State v. Coats, 158 Or. 122, 74 P.2d 1102 (1938). The usual generic definition of the term in the organic law is any plan or scheme which has three essential elements: 1) a priz......
-
ZDI Gaming, Inc. v. State
...skill or judgment ....’ ” State ex rel. Evans v. Bhd. of Friends, 41 Wash.2d 133, 150, 247 P.2d 787 (1952) (quoting State v. Coats, 158 Or. 122, 132, 74 P.2d 1102 (1938)). ¶ 29 In 1972, the people of the state of Washington amended the state constitution to remove this broad and absolute pr......
-
United States v. Dicristina
...relevant to state law definition of gambling), appeal filed, No. 2009–CP10–001551 (S.C.Ct.App. Oct. 1, 2009). Cf. State v. Coats, 158 Or. 122, 74 P.2d 1102 (1938) (“Poker, when played for money, is a gambling game, but, since it involves a substantial amount of skill and judgment, it cannot......
-
A BETTER LEGAL DEFINITION OF GAMBLING: WITH APPLICATIONS TO SYNTHETIC FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND CRYPTOCURRENCY.
...lotteries because players must go to a physical location, such as a casino, to participate in the game). (55) See, e.g., State v. Coats, 74 P.2d 1102. 1105 (Or. 1938); see also Willard W. McInturff, Note, Lotteries--Nature and Elements--Regulations, 16 OK. L. REV. 164, 168 (56) See, e.g., 3......